The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, MONDAY, OCT, 30, 1939. AN ALLIED VICTORY

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20081, 30 October 1939, Page 6

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, MONDAY, OCT, 30, 1939. AN ALLIED VICTORY

The passing by the United States Senate of the bill repealing the Neutrality Act means—if the decision is confirmed by the House of Representatives, as is expected—that the democracies have secured a new ally in the war against aggression. This of course, is not the official interpretation of the legislation, but no amount of verbiage and no circumlocution can disguise the real effect of the measure. Much has been said about the necessity for passing the bill in order to “keep America out of the war,” but the phrase is a somewhat ambiguous one. There can be no question that America does not desire to become a belligerent in a war that is being fought thousands of miles away from her shores, but it would be absurd to suggest that her people are viewing the conflict impartially. As President Roosevelt himself has said, neutrality docs not mean that Americans are neutral in thought, and he has repeatedly expressed his antagon-

ism to the Nazis even if he has not been so open in his avowals of sympathy for the Allies. In many quarters in the United States it is recognised that the best way of keeping out of the war is to assist, indirectly, in an Allied victory, which is the only alternative to ultimate direct intervention, and since the new law permits this assistance all pretence at real neutrality disappears.

Under the Act of 1935, the United States placed a complete embargo on shipments of arms, ammunition, and implements of war to nations engaged in conflict. The absurdity and injustice of this law had been evidenced before the present war started, because in the case of Abyssinia, Spain, and the Far East there had been no declarations of war and the Neutrality Act was not effectively invoked. Insofar as the European conflict is concerned, the Act, in practice, favoured Germany, because it meant that while Germany was still able to procure munitions from neutral Continental States, the Allies, dependent upon seaborne trade, were cut ofT from the one neutral country that could be of real assistance to them. Another im-

portant factor that entered the question was the possible unnecessary loss of United States export trade with its consequent serious effect upon industry. There were, then, at least three cogent reasons why the existing law should be repealed, firstly, the fact that American sentiment is undoubtedly preponderently with the Allies; secondly, the evidence that the law had operated ineffectively and inequitably, with discrimination against the Allies; and, thirdly, the serious threat to American trade. In these circumstances it was not surprising that repeal of the law should have been regarded more or less as matter of course.

The bill passed by the Senate is notable mainly for the “cash-and-carry” provision which enables belligerents to acquire munitions on condition that they are paid for in advance and carried in non-American ships. The clause largely explains itself and makes it clear why the new measure is of such importance to the Allies. Britain and France have command of the seas and have ample credits in the United States, so that they will now be enabled to tap the almost inexhaustible supplies of American goods and materials. On the other hand, Germany, having neither the available shipping nor the necessary funds, will be denied a similar advantage. Under the law, American shipping is not permitted to trade to the war zone—so that there can be no repetition of the City of Flint case—but the embargo does not extend to belligerent countries, such as New Zealand, which are

not in the zone of actual hostilities.

American nationals are prohibited from travelling on the ships of belligerent States and from contributing funds to belligerents except for relief

purposes. Finally, power is taken to regulate the use of United States territorial waters by foreign submarines and armed merchantmen, but this clause seems to have been so loosely

framed as to permit, of its application, should it be desirable or necessary, in the interests of the Allies. The fact that the Senate passed the bill by more than a Uvo-to-one majority, whereas at first there were some doubts as to its fate, may be accepted as an indication of the swing of American public opinion towards the Allies. Official opinion had long since been made clear, but the vast conglomerate opinion of the country as a whole has been slow to respond. It is just two years since Mr. Roosevelt made his notable "quarantine” speech in which he said that “the

peace-loving nations must make a concerted effort to quarantine and stop the aggressors.” Early last year, Mr. Cordell Hull proclaimed against “the forces of militarism and territorial aggression," and said: “We will continue to give full and sincere adherence to the fundamental principles which underlie international order."

Later in the year, Mr. Roosevelt referred to the “profound reaction among American people" to events in iGermany and recalled his Ambassador from Berlin. Then another member of the Cabinet, Mr. Ickes, referred to Hitler as a “brutal dictator," and the protest from Germany was emphatically rejected. At the end of 1938, Mr. Roosevelt issued “the straightesl warning ever delivered by a President to another nation," and early this year Senator Pittman said it was America’s part “to aid the democracies in their fight against the dictators.” So the record has gone on for years. There has been no secret as to where American sympathy lies and the new legislation only serves to give it more tangible expression.